Crispin Blunt: No, it is not. The hon Lady is referring to a decision by the management of London prisons, which are principally local prisons, to focus on short-term offenders who are incarcerated in London as well as in local prisons supporting the courts. We are going to change the system so that resorative justice is embedded in the criminal justice process from beginning to end. The hon. Lady supported her party for a very long time in trying to get that done. I assure her that we shall absolutely deliver it.

Kenneth Clarke: We have made clear our intention to make prisons places of work and industry. In the Green Paper, “Breaking the cycle”, published last December, we set out our proposals to break the destructive cycle of crime. That included proposals for prison work. Our response to the consultation on the Green Paper will be published soon.

Kenneth Clarke: As I explained earlier, I feel that concern strongly. The matter does not so much require legislation as sensible organisation, change in the structure of prison industries, and more leeway for governors to arrange work when there is a sensible opportunity to do so. A significant change in the culture of parts of the prison service would add to the good work that goes on at the moment, which is quite rare and is scattered across the prison estate. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important aim.

Nicholas Clegg: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government’s plans to reform the other place.
	At the last general election, each major party committed to a democratically elected second Chamber. The coalition agreement set out very clearly the Government’s intention to deliver that, but the roots of these changes can be traced back much further. A century ago, the Government, led by Herbert Asquith, promised to create
	“a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis.”
	There has been progress in the intervening years—the majority of hereditary peers have gone, and the other place is now predominantly made up of life peers. We should see ourselves as completing that work.
	People have a right to choose their representatives. That is the most basic feature of a modem democracy. Our second Chamber, which is known for its wisdom and expertise, is none the less undermined by the fact it is not directly accountable to the British people. I am therefore publishing a draft Bill today, and an accompanying White Paper, which set out proposals for reform.
	In the programme for government, we undertook to
	“establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation.”
	I chair that cross-party committee, which reached agreement on many of the most important issues—not on all of them, but good progress was made—and those deliberations have greatly shaped the proposals that are being published today. I should like to pay tribute to all members of the Committee, particularly Opposition Members, who engaged with us in an open and collaborative fashion. Let me also thank those individuals whose past work on Lords reform has laid the foundations for what we are doing today, particularly the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and the right hon. and noble Lord Wakeham. Rather than start anew, the Government have benefited from their previous endeavours. Today’s proposals represent a genuine, collective effort over time.
	The draft Bill and White Paper will now be scrutinised by a Joint Committee composed of 13 peers and 13 Members of this House. The Committee will report early next year, and a Government Bill will then be introduced.
	The Prime Minister and I are clear that we want the first elections to the reformed upper Chamber to take place in 2015. However, although we know what we want to achieve, we are open minded about how we get there. Clearly, our fixed goal is greater democratic legitimacy for the other place, but we will be pragmatic in order to achieve that. We therefore propose an upper House made up of 300 members, each eligible for a single term of three Parliaments. Three hundred is the number that we judge to be right, but this is an art and not a science. In the vast majority of bicameral systems, the second Chamber is significantly smaller. That arrangement helps to maintain a clear distinction between the two Houses. We are confident that 300 full-time Members can cover the work comfortably. We are, however, open to alternative views on that.
	The coalition agreement committed the Government to produce proposals for
	“a wholly or mainly elected chamber.”
	That debate is reflected in what we are publishing today. The Bill makes provision for 80% of Members to be elected, with the remaining 20% to be appointed independently. The 60 appointed Members would sit as Cross Benchers, not as representatives of political parties, and in addition bishops of the Church of England would continue to sit in the other place, but would be reduced in number from 26 to 12. The White Paper includes the case for a 100%-elected House of Lords. The 80:20 split is the more complicated option, and so has been put into the draft Bill in order to illustrate it in legislative terms. The 100% option would be easy to substitute into the draft Bill should that be where we end up.
	There are people on both sides of the House who support a fully elected Chamber, believing that an elected House of Lords should be just that. Others, again on both sides, take a different view, and support having a non-elected component in order to retain an element of non-party expertise, as well as to keep greater distinction between the two Houses. Personally, I have always supported a 100%-elected House of Lords, but the key thing is not to make the best the enemy of the good. That approach has stymied Lords reform for far too long. After all, 80% is a whole lot better than 0%.
	Elections to the new reformed House will be staggered: at each general election a third of Members will be elected, or a combination of elected and appointed. That is to prevent the other place from becoming a mirror image of this House. In the Bill we set out how those elections could be conducted using the single transferable vote. The coalition agreement specifies only that the system must be proportional, and what is most important is that it is different from whatever we use in the Commons. That is to ensure that the two Chambers have distinct mandates; one should not seek to emulate the other.
	STV allows for that, and would also give the upper Chamber greater independence from party control. Votes are cast for individuals rather than parties, putting the emphasis on the expertise and experience that candidates offer, rather than the colour of the rosette they wear. We want to preserve the independence of spirit that has long differentiated that House from this one. I know that some Members prefer a party list system, including Opposition members of the cross-party committee I chaired. We are willing to have this debate, and have not ruled out a list-based system in the White Paper.
	The Commons will retain ultimate say over legislation through the Parliament Acts, and will continue to have a decisive right over the vote of supply. In order for a Government to remain in office they will still need to secure the confidence of MPs. The other place will continue to be a revising Chamber, providing scrutiny and expertise. Its size, electoral cycle, voting system, and terms will all help to keep it distinct from the Commons and a place that remains one step removed from the day-to-day party politics that, quite rightly, animate this House. What will be different is that our second Chamber will finally have a democratic mandate, and will be much more accountable as a result.
	Clearly, the transition must be carefully managed. We propose to phase in the reform over three electoral cycles. In 2015 a third of Members will be elected, or a combination of elected and appointed. The number of sitting peers will be reduced by a third, although we are not prescribing the process for that; it will be up to the parties in the other place to decide. In 2020, a further third will come in under the new system, and then again in 2025. There are other ways of staging the transition, however, and the White Paper sets out two of them.
	To conclude, history teaches us that completing the unfinished business of Lords reform is not without challenges. Our proposals are careful and balanced. They represent evolution, not revolution, and are a typically British change. I hope that Members from both sides of the House and the other place will help us to get the proposals right. The Government are ready to listen and are prepared to adapt, but we are determined, in the end, to act. I commend this statement to the House.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advanced sight of the statement, and for how he chaired the working group—squaring the views of Lord Strathclyde with those of the rest of us was nothing short of a master class in conflict resolution. I am also pleased to see the Prime Minister here supporting the Deputy Prime Minister. The latter must feel like the manager of West Ham seeing his chairman after the final whistle on Saturday. I hope he has a better outcome than the chairman—I mean the manager—of West Ham had on Saturday.
	I agree that our politics and constitution are in need of reform. Like the Deputy Prime Minister’s party, Labour had a manifesto commitment to create a fully elected second Chamber. Let us be frank: Lords reform is not near the top of any of our constituents’ priorities. They are more interested—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am grateful for that support; I am not sure whether the Deputy Prime Minister is. Our constituents are more interested in their schools and hospitals, and whether they will have a job at the end of the year. This is about how we write the laws that affect us, including laws on schools and hospitals, and who writes those laws, so if we are doing it, we have to get it right.
	The present situation is unsustainable. The Lords has more than 800 Members, and the Prime Minister intends to pack in another 200, at great expense to the taxpayer—117 have already been added since May 2010—while at the same time cutting the number of elected Members in this House. More unelected, fewer elected—and he calls it progress. I fear that the Deputy Prime Minister will soon realise that the Tories are the real obstacle to reform, just as they were when we were in power.
	It is important that we get the details right. The Deputy Prime Minister says that he supports a fully elected second Chamber, yet he is unveiling a Bill today that leaves at least 20% appointed, plus bishops, plus Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister. The Joint Committee will have a built-in Government majority, so the idea of it overturning anything of substance in the Bill by next year is unrealistic. These proposals risk being a dog’s dinner, with nobody happy at the outcome—
	not even the Lib Dem activists, whom the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to appease. After 12 months in office, he has nothing new to say on Lords reform, but is simply putting out proposals that kick the issue into the long grass.
	Before the Deputy Prime Minister delegates responsibility for the Bill to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is the Minister responsible for political and constitutional reform, and to Lord Strathclyde, can he answer these 11 questions on the proposals?
	Bearing in mind that the country comprehensively rejected the AV system two weeks ago, is the Deputy Prime Minister seriously suggesting that he should impose a system of proportional representation for the second Chamber without consulting the electorate? What powers does he want a reformed House of Lords to have? How will he deal with the conventions that currently govern the relationship between the two Chambers? Does he believe that the relationship should be codified? What role does he envisage for the bishops in the second Chamber, and why 12? Can he set out the cost of a reformed second Chamber? If it is possible that no peers would be forced to leave until 2025, what does he predict the maximum size and cost of the second Chamber will be in the interim? Will he confirm that he wants reform on the statute book by the next election? Will he confirm whether he intends to use the Parliament Acts to force the proposals through? Will he also confirm whether coalition MPs and peers will be whipped to vote for the Bill when it comes out of the Joint Committee? Finally, will he allow a debate on his Bill in Government time before the summer recess?
	The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed by the publication of this Bill just how irrelevant he and his party are in the coalition Government. I am afraid that the Bill, the White Paper and the whole process are a huge anticlimax.

Nicholas Clegg: Not only did the right hon. Gentleman fluff the lines at the beginning, he also failed to rise to the occasion. This is an occasion when, for once, he could put aside his sour observations and try to work across parties, as we have in the cross-party committee, to make some progress not only, I should remind Opposition Members, on something that was in their manifesto—by the way, so was AV, but a fat lot of good that did us all—but on something that we have been discussing as a country for almost 100 years. If that is not long enough, I do not know what is.
	Before I turn to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, let me address the vital issue, which he has raised once again, about a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. It would be so much easier to take the right hon. Gentleman’s admonitions in favour of 100% seriously if, during the 13 years under Labour, more had been delivered than 0%. Given that the country has been debating House of Lords reform for more than a century and that all three parties made a manifesto commitment on this issue last year, it is crucial not to make the best the enemy of the good. We have set out in the Bill how an 80:20 split would work, and we have maintained the option in the White Paper of moving to 100% if that is what people want. That is exactly what we will submit to the Joint Committee.
	Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, the cost is almost impossible to estimate at this stage, without knowing precisely what the final composition of the House of Lords will be or the method of transition from where we are now to where we want to be in 2025. In the Bill, we have proposed a staged election—or election and appointment—by thirds in 2015, 2020 and 2025, alongside a staged reduction, commensurate with that, from the House of Lords as it is at the moment.

Nicholas Clegg: We discussed this in the cross-party committee. It is precisely to avoid competition between the two Houses that the Bill and the White Paper propose different systems of election, different geographical constituencies—the Lords would not represent constituencies in the way that we understand in this House—and non-renewable 15-year terms. Bicameral systems in other countries show that, as long as the mandate and the term in one House are very different from those in the other, an asymmetrical relationship can be preserved.

Nicholas Clegg: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the insight that it is best to have long non-renewable terms in the other place in a reformed House of Lords precisely to avoid such conflict with the other place was not established by the present Government or the cross-party committee I chaired; rather, it is an idea that has enjoyed consensus from the days of the Wakeham commission onwards. If we look at the proposals from a cross-party group of MPs, which were given considerable support by the previous Labour Government in 2005—the “Breaking the Deadlock” proposals—we find that a preference was made not only for non-renewable terms of between 12 and 14 years, but for the single transferable vote. These are not new proposals: they are drawn from a lot of insights identified by others from all parties in the past.

Nicholas Clegg: I just do not recognise that. A commitment was made by the hon. Gentleman’s party, by the Labour party and by the party I lead and it was set out very clearly in all three manifestos of the main parties, so I do not think it can conceivably be described as a “private preoccupation” for one politician or another. This is an issue that we have been debating as a country for over a century. A very simple principle is at stake: do we believe, yes or no, that it is a good thing in a democracy for people to be able to hold those who make the laws of the land directly to account? According to our manifestos, all of us believe that that is the right principle; it is therefore right for this Government to try, on a consensual, open and pragmatic basis, to try and reach agreement so that we can finally put that principle into practice.

Kate Hoey: Most people will agree that the House of Lords has become too large, but that could be changed by all the parties agreeing to stop making so many new Lords. I do not know what happens on the buses in Sheffield and what people on those buses are saying, but I certainly know that people on the Clapham omnibus in my area are not demanding the reform of the House of Lords, as they have many, many higher priorities, yet they have to see huge amounts of time, effort and money being wasted on this.

Nicholas Clegg: I remind the hon. Friend that last year he fought a campaign in favour of—this was in the Conservative party manifesto—
	“a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords”
	without a commitment to a referendum.

John Redwood: What sort of people does the Deputy Prime Minister wish to select to this hybrid Chamber, and why does he think that those skills would be lacking under a fully elected system?

Nicholas Clegg: It would not be up to me, or to any members of future Governments, to make such selections. Core to the proposals in the Bill in regard to the model with 80% elected and 20% appointed is the making of appointments by an entirely independent and statutory appointments commission, the process being conducted in an entirely open and meritocratic manner.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking that the Joint Committee that is to be set up will include representatives from the smaller parties represented in Parliament, unlike the committee that he set up previously, which brought forward this Bill?

Nicholas Clegg: Never occurred to me, Mr Speaker—never. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that any electoral change or changes to the electoral system can only be preceded by a referendum. It is worth remembering that we have changed electoral systems in this country on many occasions—for the European Parliament, the London assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament—and that the Government are proposing to do it for elected mayors all without referendums.

Duncan Hames: I would like to see every vote cast in our democratic Parliament cast by individuals who have been elected. We should all recognise, however, the widespread respect among our constituents for the spoken contributions made in the other place by Cross Benchers. Have my right hon. Friend or his committee considered measures by which they could be allowed to stay in the House of Lords so long as the votes were the exclusive preserve of those who had been elected?

Nicholas Clegg: I think the hon. Gentleman has some force to his argument, but one thing we were keen to preserve in the cross-party committee was that any reform should be designed in a manner that would allow elected Members of any reformed House of Lords to retain a certain independence and even distance from party politics. A lengthy non-renewable term was seen as one way of delivering that, not only by the cross-party committee that I chaired but by many other cross-party committees that have considered the issue in the past.

Andrew Percy: I broadly welcome the proposals to elect our second Chamber and I shall certainly be supporting them. We have had some assurances from the Deputy Prime Minister on the incredibly long term in office of 15 years. Two weeks
	ago, the people of Brigg and Goole, on the same day they kicked out their Labour council and replaced it with a Conservative council, also voted by a margin of about 70% to reject a change in the electoral system. Is the electoral system also up for discussion along with the multi-Member constituencies? Is that something that the Deputy Prime Minister will at least listen to us on?

Nicholas Clegg: We have looked into the latter point and it is consistent with the Human Rights Act. The draft Bill envisages—this is something that enjoyed cross-party support on the committee I chaired—that someone from the other place would not be able to stand for election to this place unless they had completed a cooling-off period of one term. Clearly, we do not want to transform the other place into a sort of launch pad for people’s careers in this place. The reverse, however, would not be the case.

Nicholas Clegg: That would probably meet an even more noisy reception that the balanced package that we have put forward today.

Nicholas Clegg: I sought to answer those concerns earlier. What we are trying to do—it is not an easy balance to strike—is to introduce reform while maintaining a certain degree of continuity with where we have come from. That is why we arrived at the decision—I stress again that it was arrived at on a cross-party basis in the committee that I chaired—that it was best to leave things broadly as they are but, as I have said, on a much smaller scale: 12 representatives in future, rather than 26.

Nicholas Clegg: That is exactly what we propose: that it is either by election or appointment, but not by heredity, that people will be represented in a reformed House of Lords.

Nicholas Clegg: Of course there is a compelling case, for which I have argued for a very long time, for a fully elected House of Lords. However, anyone who takes even a cursory look at the unhappy history of attempts to reform the House of Lords will conclude that one of the great problems occurred when people reached too far and made the best the enemy of the good. It would be much easier to take the hon. Gentleman’s rather pious admonitions in favour of 100% seriously if he had delivered more than 0% of elections in the 13 years when his party was in power.
	Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): I welcome the broad thrust of the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, the draft Bill and the White Paper, but ask politely whether the only 80:20 split that is of any significance to the success of this legislation is the 80:20 split on the Benches behind him, with 80% against his proposals and 20% in favour.

Christopher Huhne: Today I am announcing that the Government propose to set an ambitious target in law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change.
	Signing up to an ambitious fourth carbon budget will result in no additional costs to consumers during this Parliament. We will, however, undertake a review of progress in early 2014 to ensure that our carbon targets are in line with those of the European Union. We are working up a package of measures, to be announced by the end of the year, to help energy intensive industries adjust to the low-carbon industrial transformation while remaining competitive.
	By agreeing to the level proposed by the Committee on Climate Change, we are demonstrating our desire to drive the changes needed to turn the UK into a dynamic, low-carbon economy that is attractive to investors in the new and growing low-carbon sectors. We are also sending a clear signal to the international community that the UK is committed to the low-carbon economy. That will help us to reach agreement in Europe on moving to a 30% emissions reduction target and build momentum towards a legally binding global climate change deal.
	The Climate Change Act 2008 sets a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. It also requires Governments to set carbon budgets, which are limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the UK for consecutive five-year periods. Carbon budgets must be set at least three budget periods in advance. They are designed to put emission reductions on an appropriate and cost-effective pathway to our 2050 target. The first three carbon budgets were set in 2009, following advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change. The fourth carbon budget, which sets the limit on emissions for the five-year period from 2023 to 2027, has to be set in law by the end of June 2011.
	As advised by the Committee on Climate Change, the level that we propose setting in law would mean that net emissions over the fourth carbon budget period should not exceed 1,950 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is a 50% reduction from 1990 levels. As required by the 2008 Act, once the fourth carbon budget has been set in law, we will publish a report setting out the policies and proposals required in the medium and long term to meet the budget, building on the strong foundation provided by our existing policies. That will take the form of the revised Government carbon plan later this year, following the publication of the interim version in March.
	The Committee on Climate Change advised that we should aim to meet the budget through emissions reductions in the UK, rather than by relying on carbon trading, such as under the EU emissions trading system or the purchase of international credits from projects abroad. We will aim to reduce emissions domestically as far as is practical and affordable, but we also intend to keep our carbon trading options open, to maintain maximum flexibility and minimise costs in the medium to long term. Given the uncertainty involved in looking so far ahead, that is a pragmatic approach.
	Under the Climate Change Act, emissions reductions by the UK’s industrial and power sectors are determined by the UK’s share of the EU emissions trading scheme cap. That protects the UK industrial and power sectors from exceeding EU requirements. However, if the EU ETS cap is insufficiently ambitious, it could mean disproportionate strain being placed on sectors outside the EU ETS, such as transport. To overcome that problem, and to provide clearer signals for businesses and investors, the Government will review progress towards the EU emissions goal in early 2014. If at that point our domestic commitments place us on a different trajectory from the one agreed by our partners in the EU under the ETS, we will revise up our budget as appropriate to align it with the actual EU trajectory. In line with the coalition agreement, the Government will continue to argue for an EU move to a 30% target for 2020, and for ambitious action in the 2020s.
	As part of the transition to a low-carbon economy, we need to ensure that energy-intensive industries remain competitive and that we send a clear message that the UK is open for business. Before the end of the year, we will announce a package of measures for the energy-intensive businesses whose international competitiveness is most affected by our energy and climate change policies. Rising electricity costs pose a risk to those businesses’ sectors, which are critical to our growth agenda. We will therefore take steps to reduce the impact of Government policy on the cost of electricity for those businesses, allowing them to continue to play their part in delivering our green industrial transformation. In that way, we will ensure that those sectors remain internationally competitive and send a clear message that the UK is open for business.
	It is important to stress that the UK’s existing policies already put us on track to meet the first three carbon budgets. They also provide a strong foundation for the fourth carbon budget, implying no additional near-term costs. We are reforming the electricity market, making homes and businesses more energy-efficient through the green deal, ensuring that new homes are built to a high energy efficiency standard, encouraging the uptake of ultra-low carbon cars and setting up a green investment bank.
	Meeting the 1,950 million tonnes target that we propose for the 2023 to 2027 period is ambitious but achievable. By providing long-term clarity for investors, the fourth carbon budget places the UK at the leading edge of the global low-carbon industrial transformation. It will set Britain on the path to green growth, establish our competitive advantage in the most rapidly growing sectors of the world economy, generate jobs and export opportunities in those sectors, maintain energy security and protect our economy from oil price volatility. It is a framework not just for action on climate but for growth and prosperity.

Christopher Huhne: I can add very little to what I have already said to the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher). We are, in fact, dealing with a period that is very far off—well beyond the normal range of economic forecasting—and it is sensible for us to exercise a measure of flexibility in relation to the way in which we achieve our aim. However, I can assure the hon. Lady—as I assured the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton—that we intend to meet this budget from our domestic activity. That is absolutely in line with everything that I have said about encouraging low-carbon goods and services.
	The hon. Lady should also bear in mind that even the flexibility that is afforded by trading will be limited by the existence or otherwise of far cheaper opportunities to ameliorate the position by mitigating carbon emissions outside the country rather than inside it. I believe that the more we invest in the industries that I have mentioned, and the more “learning by doing” that we do, the greater will be the chance of our meeting our targets entirely from domestic activity, which is what we intend to do.

Christopher Huhne: The concept of negawatts is very important. Let me explain to those who have not followed the debate that it means we should be able to trade into the electricity system savings in terms of energy and not merely electricity generation. That concept is part of the consultation that we are currently considering about electricity market reform, and I believe that it will be a crucial part of our reform proposals. There are several different aspects, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed when he sees the results.

Jason McCartney: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Businesses in my part of west Yorkshire are already playing a major part in the green economy. David Brown Engineering in Lockwood make the gears for offshore wind turbines and is very appreciative of a £2 million investment from the regional growth fund for a research centre there, TEV Ltd in Brighouse is investing in air source heat pumps, and the then Conservative-run Kirklees council introduced the Warm Zone scheme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we cut emissions, the number of green jobs will increase?

Christopher Huhne: For every report that reaches the sort of the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, I can point him to other reports that suggest exactly the opposite. The OECD, which is probably the most respected and authoritative of international economic organisations, has done some very good work on green growth. We have had a very important study from Potsdam in co-ordination with a number of leading economists from Oxford and elsewhere that suggests that there are positive growth effects through investment and learning by doing. Recently, I received a very important note from Professor Nick Stern—Lord Stern—arguing that the attempts to see his report as imposing costs on the economy were simply mistaken. He feels very strongly that the move to low-carbon goods and services involves enormous opportunities and that the increase in investment involved can help to power us out of an exceptionally deep recession. That is perhaps a long answer to show that when two economists are in a room, there are sometimes three opinions. None the less, the balance of argument is very much against the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Karl Turner: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the maximum sentence for a conviction of dangerous driving from two years to seven years; and for connected purposes.
	Before my election to the House, I worked as a criminal barrister. One of the last cases that I was instructed in was defending a dangerous driver. I recall the grim expression on the face of the Crown Court judge when I got into the mitigation, not because I was wrong to ask for leniency, but because the law gave the judge insufficient discretion to mark the offence with an appropriate punishment. The driving was bad, but not the worst the judge had seen. Nevertheless, it was horrendous driving. I was keen to emphasise that it was not the worst of its kind. I finished my address by asking the judge to allow the defendant full credit for his guilty plea, and sat down knowing that I had done my best for my lay client.
	Coincidently, one of the first cases that I dealt with as a Member of the House concerned the victim of dangerous driving, Katie Harper. Her case motivated me to push for a change in the law. Dangerous driving requires the prosecution to show that the driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and that it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. There is no definition of “far below”, but the danger must be either that of injury to any person or serious damage to property. The offence is not made out where the driving is less than truly dangerous.
	The sentences handed down by judges leave victims feeling let down by the justice system when the offender is released from prison after just a few months, by which time the victims have not even started to come to terms with the damage that the offender has caused. Victims of dangerous driving are sometimes left brain damaged, paralysed or with amputations. The perpetrator will of course be punished, but the law does not currently allow the sentencing judge enough discretion to provide anything like the result that victims might expect. However, in the case of a serious assault, such as grievous bodily harm, the sentencing judge has at his disposal the discretion to mark the offence with a sentence that reflects the harm caused to the victim.
	My constituency case helped me understand the real effect on victims of dangerous driving where injury results. In 2009, Katie Harper was a healthy 23-year-old English degree student until she was hit by another car overtaking a line of traffic at seriously excessive speed. Her passenger was her mother, Christine. Katie suffered multiple breaks to her pelvis, two broken arms, facial injury and serious nerve damage to her right leg. Her mother has also been left with permanent injuries after the near-fatal incident. The entire family have suffered. Katie’s father, Paul Harper, retired early from his job as a primary school teacher to provide the round-the-clock support that his wife and daughter need. My constituents’ case is by no means the worst.
	The House will remember the tragic case of Cerys Edwards, an 11-month-old toddler. The Edwards family were the victims of a dangerous driver in 2006. Cerys has needed round-the-clock care since the collision. The driver was doing 70 mph in a 30 mph zone. He lost control of his mother’s Range Rover while overtaking. Cerys was left severely paralysed, brain damaged and reliant on a ventilator to breathe. The dangerous driver was released from prison after just six months. Cerys’s father, Gareth Edwards, is reported to have said, “It just goes to show we don’t have a justice system in this country”, when he heard that the offender had been released.
	Many judges have described in their sentencing remarks their frustration at the inadequacy of the law. In researching my Bill I took the time to seek advice from the Recorder of Hull and East Riding, His Honour Judge Mettyear. Judge Mettyear told me that every judge in the country would, in his view, want to support this proposal. There is a clear anomaly in the law. Dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of two years, whereas causing death by dangerous driving is worth 14 years.
	To highlight the disparity, let us imagine the following situation. Two young men who own powerful cars spend a Saturday afternoon with friends in a park. One suggests to the other that they should have a race. The friends warn them of the danger. One of them is not so keen, but he is heavily encouraged by his girlfriend, who offers to accompany him. He reluctantly takes up the offer and they race through the crowded streets, overtaking each other in the face of oncoming traffic, which has to swerve to avoid collision. They continue at great speed in order to escape the police. As they try to navigate a bend, they lose control. One of them ploughs into a bus stand, causing serious injury. The other manages to swerve to avoid the bus stand but hits a tree. His girlfriend, who is a passenger, is tragically killed. The other driver is lucky and does not cause death, but he leaves his victim paralysed and permanently brain damaged. The one who causes the death will face up to 14 years imprisonment. The one who leaves the innocent victim paralysed and brain damaged will face a maximum of two years imprisonment. This sentence must then be reduced by one third, as credit for pleading guilty, and then further because it is not considered the worst such case that the judge has seen. The offender will serve a matter of a few months in prison, but what sentence does his innocent victim face? In this scenario, the culpability of the driver who caused death was in some
	ways less than the one who was lucky and did not. How is that justice? My motivation is compounded by the forthcoming justice Bill, which proposes to increase the discount for an early guilty plea from one third to 50%, which means that even the worst example of dangerous driving will attract a starting sentence of only 12 months.
	I am grateful for the cross-party support I have received for my Bill. Over the past few weeks, I have spoken with right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, and their advice and encouragement has been gratefully received. I am grateful to Louise Casey, the Victims’ Commissioner, for her support and invaluable advice. I have also discussed my proposal with my area chief constable, Tim Hollis, who fully supports my efforts. The charity Brake welcomes the proposals and the AA, Aviva and the RAC have also committed their support.
	I know that my proposal is unlikely to find its way on to the statute book in its current form, but I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will take on board the points that you, Mr Speaker, have allowed me to make. The Bill requires a simple amendment to paragraph 9 of schedule 2 to part 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The effect, however, would be substantial. The Bill would allow judges the discretion to redress the balance in favour of the victim. The proposed legislation addresses an anomaly in the law and offers a proper deterrent. I respectfully invite the House to support it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Karl Turner, Anna Soubry, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr John Leech, Julie Hilling, Chris Evans, John Mann and Andrea Leadsom present the Bill.
	Karl Turner accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 190).

Localism Bill
	 — 
	[1st allocated day]

Andrew Stunell: I take note of that, and I will return to it in two or three minutes’ time, if I may.
	The hon. Lady is of course right that there was not agreement on everything. I recognise, in particular, that there were different views on mayors, not only between Government and Opposition Front Benchers but between some of my hon. Friends. I will listen carefully to the points made today on the mayoral proposals in the Bill, particularly on such issues as shadow mayors and mayoral management arrangements. Overall, however, I was struck by how much we had in common and how much consensus there is about the need to change the power balance in this country in line with the direction that the Bill takes. I hope that the House will recognise that through the range of new clauses and amendments that we have tabled, we have tried genuinely and thoroughly to address the points that have been raised.
	Let me turn in more detail to new clause 12 and some of the other Government amendments. I appreciate that I have to strike a difficult balance between using up the available time for debate and giving the House a reasonable explanation of the measures before it. I will steer as good a course as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure you will let me know if I go astray. New clause 12 and its related amendments impose conditions on the use of the delegated powers in clause 5(1) in relation to the general power of competence. Clause 5(1) sets out a power for the Secretary of State to remove or to change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power of competence. We have termed this the barrier-buster power.
	Amendment 64 is the equivalent provision for the general power of competence for fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales. The amendment imposes conditions on the use of the delegated powers in new section 5C(1) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which is inserted by clause 8. New section 5C(1) sets out a power for the appropriate national authority—Welsh Ministers for the devolved matters relating to Wales, but otherwise the Secretary of State—to remove or to change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power for fire and rescue authorities.
	Concerns were expressed about the scope of the delegated power at clause 5(1)—the barrier buster—and the equivalent powers in relation to fire and rescue authorities. The Government reflected on those concerns and decided to introduce specific preconditions as to the use of the barrier-buster power and the limitations on its scope. These include a proportionality test and a requirement to achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by an order. In addition to the current requirements that the Secretary of State has to satisfy—in particular, that he must think that a provision prevents or restricts the use of the general power and must consult on his proposals—subsection (1) now provides that he must also consider the conditions set out in subsection (2), in relation to the general power, and in section 5C(1) in relation to the fire provision to have been satisfied in relation to the proposals.
	The new conditions that the clause introduces ensure that the use of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective intended, that there is a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected, that there is no removal of any necessary protection, that no person will be prevented
	from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that they might reasonably expect to exercise, and that any provision is not of constitutional significance. In the light of Opposition amendments 36 and 37, it is perhaps worth explaining the effect of these conditions in a little more detail. The first condition is that the effect of the provision made by the order is proportionate to its policy objective. It might be possible to achieve a policy objective in several different ways, some of which might be more onerous than others and could represent a disproportionate means of securing the desired outcome, so the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that that is not the case and that there is an appropriate relationship between the policy aim and the means chosen to deliver it.
	The second condition is that the provision made by the order, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest, on the one hand, and the interests of the person adversely affected by the order, on the other. While it may be possible to make an order that will have an adverse effect on the interests of one or more persons, the Secretary of State must first be satisfied that this is outweighed by beneficial effects in the public interest. The third condition is that the provision made by the order does not remove any necessary protection. The notion of necessary protection can extend to economic protection, to health and safety protection, and to the protection of civil liberties, the environment and national heritage.
	The fourth condition is that the provision made by the order will not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. To take a leading example, any right conferred or protected by the European convention on human rights is a right that a person might reasonably expect to keep. The fifth and final condition is that the provision made by the order is not constitutionally significant. That condition will allow orders to amend enactments that are themselves constitutionally significant, but only if the amendments are not constitutionally significant. The condition puts it beyond doubt that repeal of legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Communities Act 1972 is outside this power.
	In addition to these preconditions, we are seeking to amend the Bill so that an order under clause 5(1) or section 5C(1) of the 2004 Act may not make provision in relation to certain specified limitation. Subsection (3) prevents orders from being used to delegate or transfer a function of legislating, ensuring that a power to make legislation given by Parliament to the Secretary of State or to another body cannot be transferred to a local authority in the interests of barrier busting. It is right that those decisions should remain with Parliament. Subsection (4) gives a definition of the function of legislating—that is, legislating by order, by rules, by regulation or by subordinate instruments. Subsection (5) prohibits an order from abolishing or varying any tax. It could be argued that removing a tax payable by a local authority would be the removal of a barrier, but it is not our intention that clause 5(1) should be used in that way, so the new clause will prevent an order to vary tax from being made.
	Taken as a whole, the Government’s proposals will provide the protections that the Opposition seek in amendments 36 and 37, but without the inflexible and heavy-handed mechanism that they propose.
	Amendment 36 would amend the definition of a statutory provision by excluding from that definition a long list of statutes, which is set out in amendment 37. That appears to have been prompted by various strands of work that are being undertaken to gather information about local authority duties. This appears to be an attempt to make a point about front-line duties and the desirability of many things that local authorities have to do. Indeed, that is what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) set out on her website as being her intention. She has fairly given me notice that she
	“will be pressing ministers in the Commons debate…to be clear about which other vital council services can be protected.”
	I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that the general power is not designed as a means to do away with duties that Parliament has imposed on local authorities. The general power does not oblige local authorities to act in a particular way; it is not the same thing as a duty imposed by legislation. It will give local authorities real freedom to innovate and act in the interests of their communities. The Opposition seem to have developed a misunderstanding about the scope of clause 5(1). It provides the Secretary of State with powers to remove or change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power. That restriction or limitation is one that bites on the general power by virtue of clause 2. The provision is about removing barriers to the legal capacity of authorities to act innovatively and in the best interests of their communities. It is not aimed at removing duties, nor is it, nor could it be, a general-purpose tool to remove any legislation that places a burden on local authorities.
	New clause 12 and the connected Government amendments will increase the safeguards on the use of the power in clause 5(1). In addition, the Secretary of State must consult before exercising the power and the appropriate parliamentary procedure for scrutinising any proposed order will be determined by Parliament.

David Ward: I am grateful for this opportunity to place my views, with which those hon. Members who served on the Public Bill Committee will already be familiar, on the record, and I apologise for any repetition. I fully support amendment 41; indeed, there are many amendments that I could support, and many more that I would like to have seen that no one else would have supported. I feel strongly about this one, however. It relates to elected mayors and shadow mayors, and to the executive powers of the mayors. Amendment 41 deals with something that symbolises everything that is wrong with the Bill.
	There is nothing worse than waste, and there is nothing worse than a wasted opportunity. The Bill is a colossal wasted opportunity for the House to consider the relationship between central and local government. We have profoundly let down the democratic system by not reviewing that relationship. We could have looked at what other countries do, and agreed some basic principles against which any measures relating to local authorities could have been evaluated. I agree with Professor Stewart and Professor Jones, who gave evidence to the Bill Committee, that this is a centralism Bill, rather than a localism Bill. How different it could have been if the will had been there to make it so.
	Opposition Members will no doubt be delighted to learn that, in my local authority, the Lib Dems lost a seat to Labour. We lost it in an election in which nearly seven out of 10 electors did not turn out to vote. At a time when politics is divided, and when big issues are dividing the nation, we again need to ask profound questions about why people are so reluctant to turn out and vote. We need to ask questions about the quality of the candidates, as well as about the turnout. We also need to ask what the measures in the Bill will do to address the serious democratic deficit in this country. We know the reasons behind the problem. We know that, when we knock on the doors, people say that we are all the same. The reality is that that is largely true. It is hard to be different in local government. The discretion and freedom to be different have disappeared, year by year, Government by Government.
	In Committee, I mentioned local authority budgets. Bradford has a budget of more than £1 billion, yet we end up discussing only £1 million or £2 million. Local politicians expend a lot of hot air disputing those amounts, while the vast majority of the budget is beyond their control. Yes, we are largely all the same. The Bill could have removed barriers and restrictions. I do not understand why, when we are desperate to remove barriers to the private sector to encourage initiative, entrepreneurship, enterprise and freedoms, we do not do the same thing at local government level. Those barriers will remain after the Bill has been passed.
	The Government are still overbearing, arrogant and interfering. They are still ruling by stipulation, by compulsion and by bribery. They provide handouts that local government can spend, but on one thing only. How many times have Members who were formerly councillors known that the only show in town involved doing whatever the Government were funding? They were not given the discretion to spend that money as they wished. The funding would go only to the private finance initiatives or to academies, for example. We, as locally elected councillors, were not given the money and asked how we would like to spend it. Remember the bribery involved in the swimming campaign and the free school meals? The initiatives lasted for one year only, and we had to pick up the tab the year after. They were introduced simply to facilitate ministerial press releases.
	None of this will be changed by the Bill. Councillors are used and abused. The Treasury insists on controlling the finance, and without financial freedom, there is no democratic freedom. The low opinion of local government held by people in this place staggers me; I am appalled by it. An example is the outrageous front-loading of the cuts. Instead of local government being seen as a partner to help us through the financial crisis by contributing to the deficit reduction over a period of time and being asked for help to deal with it, the cuts have been imposed on it from above by a Government who claim to support localism.
	I support amendment 41. My views on elected mayors are, quite frankly, my business and they should be expressed in a ballot if my council decides that that is what it wants to do. I will participate in that debate—not in this place, but where it should take place: in council chambers up and down the country. Yes, we should set parameters and controls; yes, we should demand disclosure, which was mentioned earlier; but for goodness sake, let us breathe life back into a vital part of our democratic system.

Heidi Alexander: I have no experience of that happening. I would be interested to speak to the hon. Gentleman after the debate to learn more about his experience.
	What puzzles me most about this Government’s obsession with senior pay is that it comes at a time when they seem spectacularly unwilling to tackle excessive pay in the private sector. I represent a London constituency and I know that there are bankers, lawyers and accountants who, within five or six years of graduating from university, will be earning £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 a year. That is not far off the wage of a head of children’s services. I ask whether it can be right to put all the focus on senior council pay.
	I agree with the amendments tabled by Opposition Front-Benchers that deal with bringing transparency to low pay. Lewisham is an authority that has led the way on implementing the London living wage. As a result of its London living wage policy, 800 contracted staff are better off from the council’s insistence on seeking invitations from contractors that put in a London living wage bid as well as a regular bid. I am proud of the work that the authority has done on that and I believe that there are ways of encouraging the public sector and local councils to do the same.
	I had wanted to comment on amendment 37, but I am conscious of the time. It is strange how the Government are, drip by drip, telling us which duties they wish to protect—whether it be duties to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, or to provide allotments or whatever. Why did the Government not do this work before they put out their review of burdensome regulations? A couple of weeks ago, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government heard the Minister for Housing and Local Government talk about the Department’s decisive leadership in abolishing the Audit Commission. I would urge the Government to show some leadership in saying which of the “burdens” they value and want to see protected. It seems to be one rule for one thing and a completely different rule for something else. I think it is sloppy and poor government—sadly, I think many of the Bill’s provisions are an example of poor government. I look forward to voting against some clauses and in favour of some amendments when we get the chance.

Greg Clark: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I know that as Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, he has taken a great interest in these matters. I have always been clear that the Bill represents a major change and it behoves any Minister from whatever party to listen to representations and to seek to improve what is a different way of solving a classic problem—planning issues that have a larger than local dimension to them. The previous Government attempted a resolution through regional arrangements. We formed a view, for better or for worse. Some of us on the Government Benches thought that those arrangements should not have been entered into in the first place. Those on the Opposition Benches would reflect, I think, that the arrangements have had their day and should be replaced with a means of addressing larger than local issues that is robust and captures the need for strategic planning. I will go straight to the amendments that relate to that—Government amendments 144 to 158—and say something about the Opposition’s amendments as I do so.
	We accepted that there was an opportunity to strengthen the duty to co-operate that was set out in the Bill as originally drafted. Indeed, I perhaps agree that a minimalist view that was taken of that duty. We have replaced it with something that enjoys support from a wide range of groups, having reached a form that they endorse as a useful resolution to some of these matters. I pay tribute to the effort and work that many groups outside the House have put into strengthening the duty to co-operate. It would be churlish not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who approached these matters in a similar vein; the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee provided a basis on which to discuss these matters and to make progress.
	The duty to co-operate will be significantly strengthened by the amendments that we, as promised, have brought forward. They are modelled closely on what we said was appropriate in Committee and what the Royal Town Planning Institute has proposed. As the professional planning body, it was the organisation that worked most closely on this, but a wide range of other outside bodies were involved, including the Wildlife and Countryside Link coalition, which includes the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Town and Country Planning Association. In particular, we have taken up their suggestions, which were echoed in some of the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee, to make clearer the application to cross-boundary issues and to the marine planning system, which needs to be addressed. We have also taken input from the Planning Officers Society, whose members will be charged with meeting the duty to co-operate. As a result of its suggestion, our amendment proposes to put
	a reference to county councils on to the face of the Bill. That deals with one of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments that he will no doubt talk to shortly.
	The combined effect has been to create a much stronger duty to co-operate that covers all authorities and a proposed list of prescribed bodies that themselves would be subject to that duty, because planning matters clearly concern not only local authorities, but other public bodies. I know from speaking with councils up and down the country that one of the frustrations is that they sometimes feel that they have not had the full and enthusiastic co-operation of other public bodies in producing plans that are clearly relevant to them.
	I have placed in the Library of the House our draft list of bodies to be included in addition to local authorities. They include the Environment Agency, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, Natural England, the Mayor of London, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Homes and Communities Agency, primary care trusts, the Marine Management Organisation, the Office of Rail Regulation, the Highways Agency, Transport for London, integrated transport authorities and highways authorities. I think that it is absolutely right that those public bodies should be required to give every co-operation to local authorities in producing strategic plans that are larger than local plans for their area.
	We also propose in these amendments an enabling power that will require all bodies that are subject to the duty to co-operate to have regard to the activities of other bodies when preparing plans that may not have a public character. Foremost among these are local enterprise partnerships. We intend to identify local enterprise partnerships as bodies that the prescribed bodies with the duty to co-operate must take into account and with which they will need to co-operate fully.
	The duty to co-operate applies to the preparation of all development plan documents and, in particular, it requires engagement to maximise effectiveness. This cannot be a minimal engagement that simply responds to a questionnaire, which it was feared the original formulation might lead to. There must be active engagement to maximise the effectiveness of all relevant development plan documents. It applies to all strategic issues, which will be interpreted as issues that cross at least two local authority planning areas. It refers to sustainable development, because we know that the environment, in particular, does not stop at local authority boundaries and continues way beyond them, so it is absolutely right that there should be a requirement to co-operate on that. Infrastructure requirements typically go beyond local authority boundaries as well. It requires consideration to be given to the preparation of joint plans and development documents. In particular, I hope and expect that local enterprise partnerships will use their planning powers to pool some of their policies relating to the development of the economy so that they will have attractive, appealing and clear pro-growth policies, especially in areas where there is a need to attract new employers.
	The crucial test of the duty to co-operate is the soundness of the plan. If the inspector finds that the duty has not been complied with, the plan will be unsound and cannot be adopted. Therefore, there is an absolute safeguard that this is not just a voluntary activity, but that it is absolutely at the heart of plan making, and rightly so, because the strategic level is very important to emphasise.
	The amendment, which is the product of extensive consultation with the professional bodies and some of the other representative bodies, anticipates and deals with many of the amendments that Opposition Front Benchers might be minded to move. If I have time at the end of our considerations on this group, I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. In particular, amendment 293 deals with the inclusion of county councils, and that is covered by our amendments. He will have heard me mention integrated transport authorities and the marine planning organisations in the list of prescribed organisations that I intend to publish. Sustainable development is very clearly marked there and is explicitly referenced, as are local transport plans and marine plans.
	On this new clause, I can do no better than quote the briefing on that which the Royal Town Planning Institute made available to Members:
	“The RTPI has worked closely with the Government on strengthening the arrangements for planning at the larger than local level and believes that the amended Clause 90 should be supported.”
	It states that the Government are
	“to be congratulated for listening on this issue.”
	I hope that we have been able to discharge the commitments that I made in Committee to establish a replacement for the regional arrangements that is rather more robust than the original version.
	Let me turn to some of the other new clauses and amendments tabled by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, has asked that this stage of the Bill’s proceedings consider the specific question of whether a definition of sustainable development should be included in the Bill. New clause 2 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and her colleagues, and those on the Opposition Front Bench have tabled some amendments relating to this matter. I will give an indication of the approach I would like to take on this, because it is an area that, as many Members know, is close to by heart. I completely agree that the purpose of planning is to promote sustainable development and that all plans and decisions should reflect that.
	New clause 2 captures where we should be, and I certainly undertake to give my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole most of what she seeks. As was always intended, we will bring out a draft national planning policy framework in July, which will have sustainable development at its heart. It will set out what we mean by sustainable development.

Greg Clark: We are not quite in the dark. I hope that I have illuminated some of the dark, given what I have been able to say about the proposed contents of that White Paper. At the time of the Budget, I said that we would try to bring forward the definition a little earlier than the rest of the document, because I know that there is an interest in it. That will at least allow the other place to have the benefit of that thinking. If a greater token of good faith than my words at this Dispatch Box is required, it will appear quite shortly.
	I think hon. Members will be satisfied with our approach. I have long regarded the matter as a personal interest, having shadowed the energy and climate change brief in opposition, and there is nothing in our approach that does anything other than enhance matters. By clarifying, and taking away much of the undergrowth around, planning policy, it will make more resonant the principles that the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and my Liberal Democrat hon. Friends so rightly want to promote.
	Neighbourhood planning is another important addition to the Bill. I freely accept that the initial version of our clauses on this could have been improved, and I made commitments in Committee that we would reflect on improvements that could be made. The hon. Gentleman was particularly exercised, and indeed lyrical, about the opportunities to improve some of these provisions. He was dismayed that a neighbourhood forum in which these issues could be discussed was liable to take place in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck, thinking that too intimate a space for such a gathering and suggesting that it should be larger. We have reflected on the size of public houses across the country, and we think we need to enable more people to attend the forums.
	There is no Dog and Duck in Birmingham, as far as I was able to establish, which is a great disappointment. There was a Dog and Duck in Holloway Head, which is perhaps an area of the city that he knows, but sadly it was demolished some time after 1899. I have brought in this very appealing photograph of the pub, which I will give to the hon. Gentleman so that next time he is in his city he can research its antecedents. I have to say that it does not look the most salubrious of establishments, but then I do not know what his taste is in public houses, and he might regret its disappearance. He may also be dismayed to hear that another public house demolished in Birmingham in recent years was the House That Jack Built. I am sure that that is a source of regret to everyone in Birmingham, but perhaps it is an opportunity for him.

Greg Clark: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I will say a few words about that in moment, and I hope to give him some comfort. He is absolutely right that one of the types of building that communities value most, whether in towns or villages, is their local pub. The frustration they feel in seeing some of these buildings demolished without the opportunity to do anything about it is a source of great concern. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who snaffled very sharpish the title of “Pubs Minister” when the portfolios were being handed out just after the general election, takes a particular interest in this and has been meeting representatives of the Campaign for Real Ale, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his group.
	For Members of the House who were not in Committee, we asked a series of questions about neighbourhood planning. First, is it right for neighbourhoods below the local authority level to be able to promote a vision of their future? We agreed that it was. This is easily available to areas that have parish councils or town councils: a standing democratic body is available, so it is easy to give it such powers. The next question is whether areas that do not have parish councils or town councils should be excluded from the ability to have a neighbourhood plan. There is an argument that they can apply for parish status, so we can provide a little bait to attract them towards doing that. Those on both Front Benches reflected on this and agreed that if some parts of the country decided that they did not want a standing parish council or town council but nevertheless wanted a neighbourhood plan, they should not be denied that.
	How can we bring together people in those places in an acceptable way to discuss these matters? In the Bill, that question turns on neighbourhood forums. We agreed to increase, through amendments, the minimum number of members of a neighbourhood forum from three—the number at which it was rather unfeasibly set—to 21. Landlords across the country can now count on at least 21 customers being in their snug to discuss neighbourhood plans rather than the minimum of three. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington argued strongly that we should increase the number. We have gone a little beyond the number that he suggested, and that is absolutely right. Government amendment 160 makes that clear.
	Amendment 160 also makes it clear that businesses should be involved. Clearly, any conception of a neighbourhood—certainly one that includes a high street—must reflect the fact that sometimes the people who have the interests of the community most at heart and who most epitomise the community are those who run businesses, because they are at the heart of the community. The fact that someone runs a business in a town but lives elsewhere should not preclude them from participating in the neighbourhood forum. We are happy to reflect that point, which again was urged by the hon. Gentleman, in Government amendments.

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman should be reassured that the measure is not a fundamental threat. Rather, it is an incidental measure for clarification. As he knows, section 106 payments have always been taken account. There is no change in the policy whatever. He misquotes the response to the consultation on the new homes bonus, which is as valid today as it was when it was published. The response states that
	“the new Homes Bonus is not intended to encourage housing development which would otherwise be inappropriate in planning terms”
	and that local authorities
	“cannot take into account immaterial considerations.”
	Therefore, local finance considerations, like any other considerations, should be taken into account only if they are material to the application that is being considered. Let me give an example to the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, if it is perfectly appropriate for a payment made under a section 106 agreement to be taken into account by the planning authority, it would be perfectly reasonable for the CIL, for example, to be used to provide investment in a road scheme that accommodates a development. If a planning authority considers that to be material, it is perfectly reasonable to take it into account. The measure simply clarifies that if payments other than section 106 payments can be used for matters that are material to the application, it is legitimate to take them into account.

Greg Clark: I will explain, although I will shortly draw my remarks to a conclusion, as I know that other Members want to speak. As my hon. Friend and all other members of the Committee know, my view is that we should move away from a system of planning by development control, where recourse is made to the Planning Inspectorate rather than local decision makers, which is how the future of our communities has been developed. I want fewer appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and more decided locally. Doing that means plan-making becoming a much more prominent part of the process. Neighbourhood plans and pre-application scrutiny—and, incidentally, neighbour plans becoming part of the development plan, even if the local authority disapproves —along with the abolition of regional imposition and the prevention of the inspector simply rewriting plans are all geared towards making the plan prominent and, indeed, sovereign. When we are dealing with the legitimate concerns of communities that feel that developments
	that they do not want have been imposed on them, my concern is to strengthen their ability to control the process by participating in plan-making.

Jack Dromey: With respect, I took many interventions in Committee, but now that the Minister has taken the best part of an hour, I am determined to get through my remarks so that we can hear the maximum number of contributions from Back Benchers on both sides.
	Ending up in a pickle, the Government have produced a system that is desperately unfit for purpose. It is important to remember what the purpose of planning is. Good planning is a vital tool for delivering the necessary development, while also delivering on sustainable development. Planning should integrate the needs of the economy with environmental and social goals to create sustainable communities and retain and enhance our cultural, historic and landscape assets.
	We support any sensible reform. We accept that the system the Government inherited was, like any planning system, capable of improvement. We agree that increased local input by local people and local communities for the future of their areas and their built environment is absolutely vital to the success of any planning system. The reformed planning system, however, must be able
	to meet key tests and objectives. The system must be able to meet our growing housing need and in the right areas.

Jack Dromey: I intend to finish my speech soon, for reasons that I have already given. In a debate lasting less than two hours, a Minister spoke for the best part of an hour. I want to allow time for the maximum number of contributions to be made by Back Benchers.
	The Government propose to introduce a regressive system that will reallocate moneys away from low-demand areas, and will undermine sustainable development by encouraging growth on the most developable and profitable rather than the most sustainable sites. The planning system must deliver sustainable development, but instead of including a definition of sustainable development in the Bill, the Government indicated in the Budget that they intended a profound shift away from sustainable development as the objective of planning towards a market free-for-all.
	An effective planning system should contribute to the delivery of our future needs, and that includes helping us to meet our carbon commitments in the fight against climate change. The Government, however, have promoted a toothless duty to co-operate, which will not contribute one iota to the mitigation of climate change. A truly effective planning system should also be responsive to local needs, demands and aspirations, but the Government’s proposals in relation to neighbourhood planning are half-baked and a bureaucratic nightmare. They are also a sham.
	Like other parts of the Bill, the localism agenda with regard to planning is wholly undermined by the Government’s attempt to face in two directions at once. On one hand we have the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government trumpeting the devolving of power to local people; on the other hand we have the Chancellor, who wants to make it easier for developers to bypass the planning system altogether. I can only assume that in the battle between the Treasury and the DCLG, the Treasury has won the day. How else can we explain the introduction of new clause 15, which enables financial benefits such as the new homes bonus to be a material consideration in the determining of planning applications?
	Ministers and others on the Government Benches should be clear about what they are voting for today. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association all condemn the proposals. The CPRE has said:
	“We believe that this amendment would fundamentally distort the planning system by encouraging local authorities to base decisions on the financial implications rather than the spatial merits of the proposed development. It could also undermine the plan-led system and result in the spread of developments that go against the views of local people.”
	That view is echoed across the planning community, and will soon be heard in Members’ surgeries up and down the country.
	The new clause undermines the fundamental principle that planning decisions should be made in the long-term public interest, taking account of land use consequences and of what local people actually want, rather than being based on financial rewards for the decision-maker. It stands on its head what the Government said in the new homes bonus design document, referred to earlier, which was released on 17 February. It also directly contradicts a written statement released on the same day by the Minister for Housing and Local Government who said:
	“The New Homes Bonus also sits alongside the existing framework for making planning decisions. Responsibility will remain with local authorities to work within this framework to continue to ensure that development is suitable and sustainable by meeting local needs and national planning policy.”
	The new clause represents a fundamental conflict of interests within planning. We must therefore ask why the proposal was not considered earlier. Could it be because since 17 February Ministers have been in receipt of a legal opinion saying that the proposed new homes bonus scheme would introduce an unlawful element into the planning decision-making process, and that any planning permission granted on the basis that the scheme, or a grant under it, is a material consideration would stand a good chance of being quashed in a claim for judicial review? Faced with the news that their cornerstone housing policy was doomed, Ministers have decided to disregard the public interest and have rigged the planning system instead. Their cries of “Localism” are sounding hollower by the minute. This new clause was not considered in Committee, and this profound change to the way in which planning works has been introduced with no consultation, dialogue or debate. We will vote against it.
	What of the Government’s amended duty to co-operate? Their most significant proposed change is to use the local development framework soundness test as a sanction to ensure that co-operation takes place. That sounds reasonable, except that it is a retrospective test. Unlike our amendments, the Government’s amendments do not specify what is meant by co-operation. It will be extremely difficult for any inspector to assess definitively whether there has been adequate co-operation. It could take several years to judge whether or not co-operation has been successful, a period we can ill afford given the pressing need to meet housing needs, to modernise our infrastructure and to respond to the increasing scientific evidence of climate change. In short, the Government’s proposed duty to co-operate remains essentially voluntary, does not specify a unified product in terms of plan or strategy, does not specify the issues to be dealt with, and does not create an effective boundary to shape the extent of co-operation. It is certainly true that the proposal in general is a step in the right direction, but this measure simply will not work.
	On the other hand, our measures go some way towards establishing the planning system the country needs. The duty we propose places sustainable development as a core objective of this co-operation, specifies the scope of the co-operation required, specifies a minimum number of issues to be the subject of co-operation including climate, housing, biodiversity and transport, and is based on a spatial area and not neighbouring authorities only, because that does not work for the most strategic planning issues. Our proposed duty also places a statutory requirement on local authorities to prepare a joint strategy that addresses a number of specified strategic
	issues. This duty will not repair the damage the Government are intent on inflicting on the planning system, but it may salvage something from the wreckage.
	What in terms of sustainable development can we retrieve from the wreckage? At a time when the country is facing unprecedented challenges in economic recovery, climate change and increased urbanisation, the need for us to achieve sustainable development and to address these issues effectively has never been greater. However, the abolition of regional spatial strategies has removed many of the mechanisms that have provided an impetus for action towards achieving sustainable development and helping to monitor progress.
	Looking to the future, achieving sustainable development must be at the heart of the planning system and the Bill, and we therefore welcome new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), which does exactly that: it puts sustainable development at the heart of the Bill. It is also absolutely vital that the adoption of short-term measures to drive economic growth and the abolition of important Government advisers such as the Sustainable Development Commission do not lead us into making decisions that are unsuitable for the country in the long term. Somewhere in the planning system consideration must be given to the how actions we take now will have an impact on future generations. In short, the Government need to be clear about the purpose of planning sustainable development. The issue is even more imperative given the Government’s intention under new clause 15, which would give financial payments a privileged status—first among equals—as no other issue, such as housing or climate change, is specifically identified in the primary legislation as material. In the light of that, there is no justification for not specifying sustainable development in the Bill.
	The proposed duty to consider climate change applies only to the preparation of local development frameworks and not to neighbourhood planning. Our proposals on climate change would ensure that, alongside our approach to strategic planning and the approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North to sustainable development, the mitigation of climate change would be at the heart of the local plan-making process.
	The new provisions in the Bill on neighbourhood planning have been drafted to avoid the climate change duty. Do the Government seriously expect the carbon emissions for each neighbourhood forum and each local development plan magically to add up to our national target on climate change?
	However, the climate change issues are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Bill’s clauses on neighbourhood planning. The Government have proposed a series of amendments to the neighbourhood planning process arising out of our debates in Committee. As on the duty to co-operate, the limited progress is welcome. The Government have agreed to increase the number of people needed to initiate a forum from three to 21, so there is no longer the prospect of three men or three women in the Dog and Duck constituting themselves as a neighbourhood forum. On our other proposals to ensure democratic accountability no concessions have been made. The Government clearly see no need to ensure that such forums are accountable, and so 35% of the country will be covered by democratic bodies—parish councils, which, at their best, are admirable institutions—
	while the remaining 65% will be represented by forums with no democratic legitimacy and no accountability. We want communities to have a greater say in planning and to have a say over their local area, but forums should be democratically accountable and involve at least one local councillor. It is simply wrong to downgrade democracy.
	We also want to give local communities a greater say over the future of their local high street. I see today that, as a result of Labour’s amendments in Committee, Mary Portas, who is described as a “TV retail guru”, is to carry out a Government-backed review aimed at halting the “decline” of the high street in England. Retail summits are fine, but they are not an alternative to practical action. The Government should therefore back the concrete proposals for change that we have put before the House today. In Committee, we moved amendments to enshrine the “town centre first” policy in primary legislation. We welcomed the all-party consensus that there clearly was on the importance of this issue and the Government’s commitment to placing the “town centre first” policy at the heart of the national planning policy framework. Although that was a step in the right direction, we need to do more to put the heart back into Britain’s high streets. New clause 29 would require a local planning authority to include a retail diversity scheme within its local development framework. Crucially, the scheme would be developed through a consultation process with the local community, with the voices of local people and of local retailers heard. The new clause establishes a vital goal: the promotion of retail diversity, striking the right balance between large and small businesses and, in particular, focusing on establishing and growing small and specialist retail businesses.
	Healthy and diverse high streets are the heart of local communities. High streets and neighbourhood shopping parades are the engine room of thriving communities and local economies. Hon. Members will be all too aware that our high streets have suffered in the downturn. The new clause is not anti-supermarket but we must ensure that the supermarkets do not succeed at the expense of the high street. We must harness their power to better the community as a whole.
	In short, Labour wants to give communities a real say in the future of their high streets and the power to make the changes that we want. I know that Ministers will tell the House that our proposal to put the heart back in the high street is not necessary since measures on the “town centre first” policy will be included in the long-awaited national planning policy framework, a document that has now attained near mythical status—nay, that of the holy grail. All that information is supposed to be contained within the document yet, like the holy grail, no one has seen it. I would submit that this matter—the future of our high street—is so important that it warrants specific legislation. The new clause ensures that communities and not central Government decide how their retail provision should change and grow to meet their needs.
	The Government’s planning Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, has said that he wants to give communities real power over their local areas and will look to strengthen the role of our high streets in our towns and cities. If the
	Government mean what they say, they should accept our changes to the Localism Bill and give local people a real say over their high street.
	On retail diversity, sustainable development, the issues incorporated in our duty to co-operate and many of the other issues raised today, I expect the Minister might tell us, “Don’t worry, it’ll be in the national planning policy framework.” Frankly, however, I would not be surprised if Ministers told us next that we could look forward to reading about the meaning of life in the NPPF. The NPPF has been trailed by the Government as a document that will streamline national planning policy guidance, but at every turn the Government have committed that something additional will be in the NPPF. The NPPF is clearly a document of vital importance to the proposed planning changes, but do we have a copy of it to read in draft alongside the Bill? No.
	There is considerable uncertainty about what the NPPF will be, what it will look like, its status within the planning system and the process for its development and adoption. Promises from the Government that it will all be okay when the NPPF is published simply will not wash. It is wrong that such a major document, so relevant to the radical changes in the Bill, has not been published alongside it.
	In conclusion, we have in front of us today a blueprint for a planning system that will deliver nothing but chaos. It is full of contradictions in its objectives and overloaded with inconsistencies in the policies designed to deliver those same confused objectives. The Government claim that the Bill will deliver balanced economic growth and the housing we need, safeguard the environment and increase local engagement in planning. In reality, it dismantles the strategic planning system and the means to meet our housing need, deliver sustainable economic growth, meet our energy needs and capacity, safeguard our environment and mitigate climate change. While Ministers claim the Bill delivers localism, the sum total of their proposals are neighbourhood forums that will be thoroughly opaque, undemocratic and unaccountable. Any hopes that the Government mean what they say about empowering communities, delivering on sustainable development or mitigating climate change are utterly discredited by their proposal to rig the planning system to make their regressive new homes bonus deliver housing in the wrong areas. I hope therefore that Government Members will support our amendment to strengthen strategic planning and give communities a real say on their local high street, and that they will vote against the Government’s new clause 15, which will fatally undermine our country’s planning system.

David Lammy: Given what the Minister has said, I rise to speak to my new clauses 30 and 31. It cannot be right that there are nine betting shops on one stretch of high street in Green Lanes or that there are 10 betting shops within 300 metres of Ealing Broadway station. It cannot be right that there are 60 gambling establishments within just 300 metres of the pagoda in Chinatown. The gambling industry and bookmakers in particular are flouting the gambling rules; they are opening up right across London and it is unacceptable. That is not to say that we want to condemn gambling—I like to gamble—but it is to say that when it comes to diversity on the high street, local communities and local authorities should have the planning powers to say, “Enough is enough,” “No, thank you,” and “No more.” That is why I think, and I am supported by London councils on this, that betting shops should be in a sui generis class of their own in the same way that casinos and amusement arcades are.
	I shall force new clause 31 to a vote because I am not satisfied that the Minister is not just kicking this issue into the long grass. There has been a campaign by London Citizens and there is a continuing campaign by faith communities on the issue. Right across London, people are sick to death of seeing one betting shop after another.
	It is a great shame that the old Hackney town hall has been turned into a Coral bookmakers. It is unacceptable that countless pubs across the country are being turned into bookmakers. That is the case for every single class use—A2, which is meant to be for building societies and banks, drinking establishments under A4, as has been mentioned, take-aways under A5, and restaurants and cafes under A3. That is why we need action, and why I had hoped the Minister would say that he accepted the amendment, as leaders of councils across London have requested. It is unacceptable to kick the matter into the long grass. I urge the Minister to think again.

Joan Ruddock: I very much agree.
	There have been the changes of use on Deptford High street that I have described, but at the same time there has been a determination to improve it, and after years of battling we secured the funds, with the co-operation of a Labour Government, for a new station at Deptford and we expected new development to follow. However, who will want to live where they will look out on such a high street? As local campaigner Sue Lawes has described, at No. 14 we have Better Betting, at Nos. 34 to 40 we have William Hill, at No. 44 we have The Money Shop, for payday loans, at Nos. 49 to 50 we have Ladbrokes, at No. 55 we have Paddy Power, at No. 60 we have Fish Brothers pawnbrokers, at No. 70 we have Coral and at No. 72 we have H&T pawnbrokers. The final straw is Betfred’s application to take over the old Halifax building. There the change of use would have been required because it was restricted specifically to use by a building society.
	The council has of course turned down that application and said, quite reasonably, that there are already far too many betting shops in the area and that it is unnecessary. They say that within the designated core shopping frontage the number of betting shops has reached
	“beyond an acceptable level, detracting from the range of retail services available within the defined District Town Centre”.
	Betfred has of course appealed. We await the result of that appeal with interest.
	I put it to the Minister that it cannot be acceptable that, in an area of great deprivation but great spirit, local residents, 700 of whom have signed a petition, have no say in what is done there. I suggest not only that local people must have a say, but that others need to be protected from this kind of proliferation. Surely this is a community that can ill afford to spend what little money it has in betting shops on this scale. I am not opposed to betting; none of us is. It is the cluster effect and the proliferation that must be dealt with, and I very much hope that he will see that that is done.

Philip Davies: I am surprise at the lack of faith that the right hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) have in their own constituents, because betting shops of course go where there is a demand for them. If there was no demand for them on the high streets in Lewisham and Tottenham, presumably some of them would close down because there would not be enough demand.

Philip Davies: No, because I do not have enough time.
	The fact that these betting shops have not closed down indicates that their constituents want to use them, which makes them viable. I commend the right hon. Gentleman in particular for leading with his chin on this issue, because of course it was the Gambling Act 2005 that removed the unstipulated demand test. He was not only a member of the Government at the time, but in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which introduced the Act that he now finds so offensive. I hope that the Minister will resist the siren voices from the Opposition Benches calling on him to do something about the general principle of supply and demand, which I hope he, as a staunch supporter of the free market, will stick to.
	I want to touch on new clause 7, which I have tabled, which relates to casinos. It would give all 600 local authorities fairly and equally the power to decide whether to allow the licensing of casino premises in their areas. The location of casinos was determined by legislation back in 1972, which identified 53 permitted areas on the basis of population data as it stood at the time and added a number of seaside towns. That information is now woefully outdated and denies many local authorities access to investment and jobs and unfairly constrains and confines legitimate and licensed businesses. Despite the emergence of new towns and new centres of population, there have been no changes at all to those permitted areas in almost 40 years. A casino licensed in an existing permitted area can move premises only within the same permitted area in which it was licensed; it may not even transfer to another permitted area, even if a local authority wants it. Those anachronistic and ridiculous constraints have enabled casinos, ironically given our previous discussion, to be crowded into outdated permitted areas. Through my new clause I do not seek to allow any more casinos in this country, even though I probably would not object to that in principle; the same limit would apply to casinos throughout the country. All my new clause would mean was that casinos were able to apply to be outside the existing 53 permitted areas, if local authorities wanted them. We would be giving every local authority the chance to have a casino in their area, if they want it, rather than sticking to outdated rules from more than 40 years ago.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	New clause 15 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	The Speaker  put forthwith the Questions  necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Amendment made: 183,page72,line9 [Clause 102], leave out from ‘must’ to ‘carry’ in line 10.—(Greg Clark.)
	Amendment made: 184,page104,line3, leave out Clause 119.—(Greg Clark.)

Amendments made: 187,page254,line10, after ‘falls’, insert ‘wholly or partly’.
	Amendment 188,page264,line10, after second ‘for’, insert ‘the part of’.
	Amendment 189,page264,line10, after ‘area’, insert ‘comprising the authority’s area’.—(Greg Clark.)
	Amendment made: 190,page37,line7, leave out Clause 57.—(Greg Clark.)
	Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Grahame Morris: Absolutely. That is a critical issue. In some respects, the Government have taken their eye of the ball. I will develop that point a little later and would like the Minister to respond to it.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is a clear and present danger of a reversal of health inequalities, which would be exacerbated by decisions taken elsewhere across Government. It is such an important issue, and one that I have long campaigned on. As someone who has worked in the health service and served on a local authority, I feel very passionately about it.
	Remarkably, we are now considering proposals that risk losing our greatest weapon in tackling public health inequalities: evidence-based health intelligence. More recently, as my hon. Friends have noted, the Marmot review has restated the link between socio-economic factors and health, which are known as the wider determinants of health. One of the more serious threats to the future of public health intelligence is its future funding under the new arrangements proposed by the Government. In my view, the Secretary of State has shown little interest in the functioning of public health intelligence under these proposed structures.
	Public health policies must take account of local circumstances as health inequalities remain stark, particularly in areas such as my constituency. For example, smoking-related deaths vary greatly across different parts of the country. Public health intelligence must drive public health practice. I appreciate that public health observatories self-generate revenue, alongside their Department of Health grant and moneys from primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. They also have opportunities to gain commissions from universities and charitable organisations, but it would be extremely risky to proceed down the Government’s proposed route without the certainty of their core Department of Health funding, which I understand is to be reduced by 30% this year.
	Staff and people associated with the service have reported to me that valued employees are already being laid off at the north-west public health observatory, which is based at Liverpool John Moores university, and there is a similar situation at the north-east public health observatory. Local authorities commission the majority of public health services from a ring-fenced budget. What assurances can the Minister give me on safeguarding through this hiatus—this period of transition—and for the long term under the new arrangements?
	I also thank David Kidney, the former Member for Stafford, who is now head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, for his assistance in preparing for this debate. The institute has stated its view that Public Health England must be established with a degree of independence, a point I made earlier, and with the ability to oversee arrangements for collecting, analysing and disseminating valuable data for public health services.
	In short, it is now time for Ministers to provide concrete assurances that the role of public health intelligence, the collection of the evidence base and, in particular, public health observatories will be safeguarded for the future.